Delhi Court December 2000 Judgments

Santosh Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. S. Egnashi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(58)DRJ433

B.A. Khan, J.1. Appellants only son, six years old, Piyush Kumar died on 10.11.1986 when he was bit by a defense Ministry Ambassador car while visiting Indira Gandhi Memorial at New Delhi. His parents claimed compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- but MACT awarded them only Rs. 35,000/- with 12% interest.2. They have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation on the ground that Piyush Kumar was their only son and there was no prospect of any child birth from the mother who had undergone victory operation.3. It is submitted that Piyush Kumar was in the school and could have persuade his academic career earned a job and helped his parents at some stage who would be dependent him. It is also complained that Tribunal had awarded a lumpsum amount without any reasoning or basis.4. It is true that no basis might be available for estimating the future pecuniary benefits that parents could be said to have lost by the death of a young child, thereforee, award of compensation in such cases is made...

John Thomas Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]117TAXMAN206(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Pursuant to direction given by this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in ITC No. 12 of 1998, at the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench D, has referred the following question for opinion of this court :'Looking to the nature of the mortgage as spelt out by, the correspondence between the parties and the fact that the rent was received by the mortgagee, whether the rent income should have been excluded from computing the taxable income of the petitioner ?'2. Dispute relates to the assessment year 1979-80. Factual position needs to be noted in brief.The assessed had a house property, namely, Rageena Mansion, in Madras. It was built in 1976 with a loan from Vijaya Bank. The assessed took another loan of Rs. 10 lakhs from Mannonite Brethren Property Association. A further loan of Rs. 7.25 lakhs was taken by him by giving the third floor of the building to the council of Baptist Churches. Vijaya Ba...

Om Prakash Bhatia Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC724

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Om Prakash Bhatia, the matter has come up before the Larger Bench of 5 Members, on a reference by the Bench before whom it was argued on behalf of the appellants that over-invoicing of the goods for export was not an offence under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It had been held in the impugned order-in-original dated 31-3-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot (ICD), Tughlakabad, New Delhi that the appellants tried to export garments (ladies skirts) of cheaper quality by showing an enhanced value. Their attempt was to get drawback of more than the price of the same in the local market. Value of each lady's skirt in the market was found to be Rs. 45/- per piece, while the declared value was of Rs. 434/- per piece. The amount of drawback per piece claimed by the appellants was Rs. 78/- as against the market price of Rs. 45/- per piece. The Commissioner of Customs - the adjudicating authority - as ...

Cce, Meerut Vs. M/S. Shreeji Electricals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue has filed this reference application stating that a point of law reading as "Whether Notf.No.16/94-CE (NT) dt. 30.3.94 still be applicable if the GP-1s are issued prior to the date specified in the same notification but endorsed subsequently and whether such GP-1s would be recognised as proper duty paid documents." 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of DPC Wire and SE Aluminium Wire. They were taking modvat credit on the strength of gate passes which were endorsed a second time after 1.4.94 in terms of Notf.No.16/94-CE (NT) ddt.30.3.94.The Asst. Commissioner refused modvat credit on the strength of these gate passes. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed modvat credit on the strength of endorsed gate passes. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal.The Tribunal in para 3 of its order dt.11.4.97 held t...

Tarantaran Co-op. Sugar Mills Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC618

1. Issue raised in these appeals is the sale price of Molasses during the year 1995-96. According to the Department, the price of molasses was Rs. 300 per quintal, Assistant Commissioner fixing that amount on the basis of contract, while the Appellate Commissioner fixed it as price fixed under statute. It is the case of the party that there was an offer by the State to pay Rs. 100 per quintal to the sugar factory when they are to realize only Rs. 200 per quintal from purchaser. This proposal put forth by the then Chief Minister was not honoured and the sugar mills could realize only Rs. 200 per quintal. They paid duty on that value. The departmental authorities proceeded on the basis that the value of molasses was Rs. 300 per quintal and the sugar factories are liable to pay the differential duty.2. Learned Departmental Representative has not placed before us any document evidencing any contract for the sale of molasses at the rate of Rs. 300 per quintal; nor did he succeed in placing...

G.M. Mittal Stainless Steels Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT428TriDel

1. The appellant herein is being wound up by orders of the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.2. Rule 22 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 inter alia, states that in any proceedings, if the appellant being a company is being wound up, the appeal shall abate unless an application is made for continuance by the official Liquidator. Since the Liquidator has not come forward, the appeal abates....

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dynomac Pumps

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT299TriDel

1. This is an application filed by the Revenue for rectification of mistake apparent from record of the Tribunal Final Order Nos.495-499/99-C, dated 26-6-1999.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents. In fact the notices issued to them had been received back from the Postal Department undelivered. We, therefor 2, heard Dr. D. K.Verma, SDR, and perused the records. The ld. SDR submitted that the Tribunal, under the impugned Order, had rejected the appeals filed by revenue relying upon the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Solar Pesticides Ltd. v. U.O.I. -1992 (57) E.L.T. 201; that this decision has been set aside by the Supreme Court in its judgment reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S'.C.) holding that the principle of unjust enrichment will apply even in case: of refund of duty paid on goods consumed, captively. The ld. SDR submitted that in view of this judgment of the Apex Court an error has crept in the final order passed by the Tribu...

Videocon Appliances Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT836TriDel

1. At the very outset Sh. M.P. Devnath, Advocate submitted that the present appeal was filed under the Customs Act while the Registry has listed it as an Excise Appeal. We find that in para 8A of the appeal the appellants have referred to the Customs Tariff Act. The Registry may amend the number accordingly.2. The matter relates to the classification of Springs and Timers. The importers declared them as part of washing machines classifiable under subheading 8450.90 of the Customs Tariff Act. The goods were cleared by the customs under concessional rate of duty. Subsequently three show cause notices were issued by the Central Excise authorities at Aurangabad demanding differential duty on the ground that both the Springs and Timers were seperately described in the Customs Tariff.3. We have heard Sh. M.P. Devnath, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.N. Singh, SDR is present for the respondents. We have carefully considered the matter. Under Note 2 of Section XVI of the Tariff, the parts...

A.S. Impex Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC375

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. A.S. Impex Ltd., is whether the exemption from payment of Central Excise duty is available to the Populated Printed Circuit Board (PCB), manufactured and cleared by them under Notification No. 48/94-CE, dated 1-3-1994.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants manufacture PCBs for Black and White TVs which were cleared by them without payment of Central Excise duty to their store situated at A-11, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi; that such cleared PCBs were stated to be used in the manufacture of Black & White TVs by the Appellants. The Commissioner, under the impugned Order-in-Original No. 52/98 dated 31-8-1998, confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 3,25,95,890/- and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act holding that the Appellants had failed to establish that the impugned PCBs were used in the manner stipulated in the Notification No. 48/94; that they had not be...

A.P. Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC630

1. In this application for rectification of mistake, the point urged by the petitioner is discernible from paragraph 9 of the petition. For a proper understanding of the contention raised therein, we read paragraph 9 - That pursuant to and under the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellants herein by its letter dated 10-1-1990 submitted a refund claim of Rs. 3,23,34,410.95 for the period 16-3-1976 to 30-11-89 and by letter dated 26-10-90 submitted another refund claim of Rs. 17,95,359.98 for the period 1-12-89 to 30-6-90 totalling to Rs. 3,41,30,170.93 to the excise authorities. The amount for refund was claimed on the various discounts allowed by the appellants as a matter of practice to its buyers and the expenses incurred by the appellant, which were claimed under 7 major heads.2. While dealing with the claim for refund we categorically observed that claims falling within six months immediately prior to the date of the application alone are to be dealt with. This aspe...